Karl, I have stayed out of this discussion. It seems that Steve will not accept global warming unless ALL doubt is removed. That can't happen as there are limits to what we can measure. Global warming is happening and that can be demonstrated beyond all REASONABLE doubt. There are stories that focus on things that science hasd gotten wrong. That is true to some degree. Often what is portrayed as science in the popular media is not a true consensus of the views of the scientific comunity but the view of a few that can be sensationalized to the benefit of the writer. I have seen notes about how Einstein proved Newton wrong - well not exactly. Newton was right to within the limits of sciences ability to measure things in his time. It is still "right" for all but a very limited number of special cases. So he was not proven worng, but the theories were refined. We are doing better measurements now on gobal temepratures and ice cover than we were able to do a hundred years ago. That does not prove the older data is wrong, just that our newer data is better. In fact the newer data confirms the results of the older data. On April 03, 2009 Dr. Lee Frelich posted a note on our state of knowledge on the subject to accompany the earlier post by Josh Kelly.
Steve has argued that global warming is an idea being used for political purposes. It definitely is being used by politicians who can somehow twist their own goals into the global warming concept. Ther is no doubt in my mind the the Kyoto Accord is simply a political ploy designed more to redistribute wealth rather than to curb global warming. Ther is a saying that statisitcs don't lie, but liars use statistics. There has been a backlash against global warming because of the way the idea is being perverted by the political process. This has led many to doubt the veracity of global warming itself and of the science involved. Global warming is real, I can't say as much for how it is being prostituted the concept for political ends. The overall disaffection wit science itself by many of the general public is a combination of both effective illiteracy in the subject and backlash from how it is being manipulated and misrepresented by the political process. If the argument had been that it is too late for us to fix the global warming process, that might have some truth to it. Perhaps we can't fix it, perhaps the best we can do is slow it down. Climatic shifts are relatively quick geologically, and dramatic. Perhaps we will fall into a hot phase for the planet as it has had for much of its entire history. It is possible, although unlikely, that the erratic and more violent weather we are experienceing may plung us into another ice age. We are certainly undergoing a drastic and likely catastrophic climatic change. Things are not going to stay the same. We should take what action we can to stop or at least mitigate the problem. Denying the reality of global warming until all doubt is removed is simply a plan for failure. By far the silliest idea put forth in these discussions is the idea that there is a "good ol' boy" network or some vast conspiracy among the thousands of scientists that have independantly been researching global warming, each with their own protocols, each with their own ides, in their own labs, all across the world, each with their own data set are somehow conspiring with teh global governemenrts to promote the idea of global warming. Science research is not a conspiracy, but a competition. Everyone is out to pubish their own results and trying to draw their own conclusions. If there were any evidence that global warming was not occuring, any slightest evidence that the global warming idea was wrong, scientists would shout it from the rooftops and send out the dumptrucks for the stacks of money those results would bring them. Oil production being brought into it is also disingenuous. If you look at what are called Hubbert Curves, they can show the relationship between the production of resource and its utilization lover time. Take anthracite coal for example, the Hubbert Curve exactly matches the rate of production as it rose from the 1800's through early 1900's, though peak production, until its decline until there iwas no effective production or reserves left. The curves increas as production increased and as new reserves were discovered and mined. Oil followed these curves exactly until the late 70's, when the production began to be controled not by supply and demand, but by oil cartels. This control will eek out production for a few more years than predicted by the Hubbert Curves, but we already are on the downslope in which production is far outpacing finding of any new reserves. Without the oil cartels, the Hubbert Curves predicts the end of effective production as a wide spread energy resource by 2050. How do I know the published Hubbert Curves represent the actual production information? I personally compiled the data for the various energy sources published for the last 200+ years and produced the curves myself for classroom use and they do match the published curves available. We have enough coal for several hundred years, but oil will be gone for fuel in the next fifty or sixty, getting more an more expensive as time passes. We are using it faster than new reserves are being found. A dribble here from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or offshore from Miami will produce a dribble more oil, but not affect the overall picture, and at what potential environmental cost? Is a few days worth of oil off Miami worth an oil spill that will destroy a multi-billion dolar tourist industry for decades, not to mention the direct effects to the local Miami population? Again the hue and cry of oil independance is being used to support a bad idea. Ed Frank --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
